eBay Seller cornfieldcomics-and-bricks BEWARE 3 3

[ADAMANTIUM]

5 minutes ago, Buzzetta said:

Oh this is why I live on Long Island... I don’t want to hear people on other side of walls. I like my yard and like I did yesterday, I like taking my bike down to the beach. 

 

that's sexy!of course so is reading books by the fire  

[kav]

3 minutes ago, ADAMANTIUM said:

that's sexy!of course so is reading books by the fire  

[ADAMANTIUM]

1 minute ago, kav said:

that's from earlier that morning, but you have to take an undocumented uber to get there.... 

[ADAMANTIUM]

@kav 

[James J Johnson]

1 hour ago, kav said:

I disagree.  There are no guarantees with a raw book.  Everyone knows this.  Otherwise there would be no need to get a book graded.  You buy a raw book, you assume some risk.  You dont get to defray that risk and make the seller pay for grading fees.  You cant get the guarantee of a slabbed book at raw prices.

Thats like wanting to play the stock market, but if your investment fails, you get your money back.

Disagreement is good when it sparks an important debate. While there isn't a guarantee being made about grade, unless otherwise stated in the listing, something like, "I guarantee this book to grade 9.0 at CGC or your money back + grading fee", a book being sold with non-disclosed restoration is defective and this defect should be part of the listing for accurate representation. If the seller omits that, whether by error or intention, the grading fee should be reimbursed for the simple matter that the reason why the buyer spent the money to have it graded was because the listing was not accurate and this inaccuracy might be reason why the buyer bid on it and won in the first place.

[kav]

3 minutes ago, James J Johnson said:

Disagreement is good when it sparks an important debate. While there isn't a guarantee being made about grade, unless otherwise stated in the listing, something like, "I guarantee this book to grade 9.0 at CGC or your money back + grading fee", a book being sold with non-disclosed restoration is defective and this defect should be part of the listing for accurate representation. If the seller omits that, whether by error or intention, the grading fee should be reimbursed for the simple matter that the reason why the buyer spent the money to have it graded was because the listing was not accurate and this inaccuracy might be reason why the buyer bid on it and won in the first place.

Only once you send to CGC can you know for sure if a book has restoration.  Raw books are sold without a 'guarantee' that there's no restoration.  Unless stated I guess.  Why should someone be able to buy as many raw books as he likes and not have to worry about grading fees if the book turns out to have restoration?  The whole reason raw is cheaper than slabbed is there's more risk.  You want no risk, at raw prices.  I just cant see that.

[Buzzetta]

39 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

I hate you.

I don't live on the beach... I am about 7 miles away. After what happened with a few friends in Sandy I would never live in a flood zone here.  It will happen again. 

[kav]

One party should not have carte blanche to profit and impose the risk on another party.  If it comes back good, I sell for more.  If it comes back with resto, I get full refund plus grading fees.  Yippee for me!!  Too bad for seller.

[James J Johnson]

Just now, kav said:

Only once you send to CGC can you know for sure if a book has restoration.  Raw books are sold without a 'guarantee' that there's no restoration.  Unless stated I guess.  Why should someone be able to buy as many raw books as he likes and not have to worry about grading fees if the book turns out to have restoration?  The whole reason raw is cheaper than slabbed is there's more risk.  You want no risk, at raw prices.  I just cant see that.

A serious seller who deals without the benefit of CGCs expertise can educate himself to better represent books, maybe not to the same level of excellence, but to enough of an extent where they catch restoration or trim while examining their comics for listings.

Here's the final analysis of the OPs transaction:

1) Cornfield's customer service left a bad enough taste in his mouth that he will never return to repeat business, which if treated correctly; responsibly, the OP may have returned to spend thousands more over time. As you said, leaping over dollars to pick up a penny.

2) Cornfield now has a testimony circulating the net that can only hurt potential sales, google his name and here's the thread.

$100 gesture of good will, which was suggested by the buyer and is more than fair, would have prevented these 2 outcomes.

[kav]

1 minute ago, James J Johnson said:

A serious seller who deals without the benefit of CGCs expertise can educate himself to better represent books, maybe not to the same level of excellence, but to enough of an extent where they catch restoration or trim while examining their comics for listings.

Here's the final analysis of the OPs transaction:

1) Cornfield's customer service left a bad enough taste in his mouth that he will never return to repeat business, which if treated correctly; responsibly, the OP may have returned to spend thousands more over time. As you said, leaping over dollars to pick up a penny.

2) Cornfield now has a testimony circulating the net that can only hurt potential sales, google his name and here's the thread.

$100 gesture of good will, which was suggested by the buyer and is more than fair, would have prevented these 2 outcomes.

I agree wholeheartedly.  It was not a smart business decision for sure and I am sure it will have consequences.  Interestingly, if you look at his feedback left, he himself doesnt appear to like it when an item has undisclosed issues-

[RockMyAmadeus]

13 minutes ago, Buzzetta said:

I don't live on the beach... I am about 7 miles away. After what happened with a few friends in Sandy I would never live in a flood zone here.  It will happen again. 

John Stossel has a great piece about the house he built on the beach on Long Island...that got destroyed a couple of times before he finally gave up.

 

[BSeldin305]

1 hour ago, Buzzetta said:

Go back and quote what I edited in.  His “strong” case is weak and dependent on words on a message board. 

Buzz who is for some reason stuck in Jamaica even though this train doesn’t stop in Jamaica. 

 

1 hour ago, Buzzetta said:

Fixed that for you.

You “think” you have a strong lawsuit over $100.  If the guy dodged you for $100 and a court actually feels like entertaining you he is dodging that as well. 

You have words on a message board.  You don’t know who exactly you are talking to. You don’t know if there was a typo from 3 to 2.  You don’t have a strong anything.  Your case is actually pretty weak. 

And even so... I have watched people dodge bigger things than $100 and some people are still seeking action. 

 

As a lawyer/ litigator licensed to practice in 3 jurisdictions I am paid to think about these things. 

I feel comfortable that in a lawsuit where the seller advertised an UNRESTORED book, that was revealed to be RESTORED, and he AGREED in writing to send back $300 following return of the book but does not- that is an enforceable verbal contract- an exchange of promises and he would be liable for, at a minimum, the extra $100 plus court costs. FYI, these were promises made in a back and forth ebay message conversation - not a message board.  They would have been specific statements directed to me that I was intended to rely on. 

Now whether or not I could collect on a judgment, whether its wise to start a lawsuit over $100, etc.  are fair points and issues that may make a lawsuit ultimately not worth it. 

[kav]

1 minute ago, BSeldin305 said:

 

As a lawyer/ litigator licensed to practice in 3 jurisdictions I am paid to think about these things. 

I feel comfortable that in a lawsuit where the seller advertised an UNRESTORED book, that was revealed to be RESTORED, and he AGREED in writing to send back $300 following return of the book but does not- that is an enforceable verbal contract- an exchange of promises and he would be liable for, at a minimum, the extra $100 plus court costs. FYI, these were promises made in a back and forth ebay message conversation - not a message board.  They would have been specific statements directed to me that I was intended to rely on. 

Now whether or not I could collect on a judgment, whether its wise to start a lawsuit over $100, etc.  are fair points and issues that may make a lawsuit ultimately not worth it. 

Verbal contract?

[BSeldin305]

2 minutes ago, kav said:

Verbal contract?

Both written contracts and oral contracts are recognized under the law.  

[BSeldin305]

35 minutes ago, kav said:

One party should not have carte blanche to profit and impose the risk on another party.  If it comes back good, I sell for more.  If it comes back with resto, I get full refund plus grading fees.  Yippee for me!!  Too bad for seller

I recognize there is risk.  But going back to puffing- there is a difference between saying "this book is unrestored" and "this book APPEARS unrestored to me".  The former is a specific representation (which is what happened here) versus the latter which is puffing.  

This seller is still listing 8 books as "unrestored" in the title.  I think its wrong.  

[kav]

4 minutes ago, BSeldin305 said:

Both written contracts and oral contracts are recognized under the law.  

I wasnt aware you had actually spoken to him.

[kav]

Just now, BSeldin305 said:

I recognize there is risk.  But going back to puffing- there is a difference between saying "this book is unrestored" and "this book APPEARS unrestored to me".  The former is a specific representation (which is what happened here) versus the latter which is puffing.  

This seller is still listing 8 books as "unrestored" in the title.  I think its wrong.  

You have to use your own wits though-if a seller says unrestored you should say 'maybe'.   

[BSeldin305]

1 minute ago, kav said:

You have to use your own wits though-if a seller says unrestored you should say 'maybe'.   

Agreed, but that doesn't get him off the hook.

[kav]

1 minute ago, BSeldin305 said:

Agreed, but that doesn't get him off the hook.

Well it does in regards to a partial refund for pressing and slabbing.

[BSeldin305]

1 minute ago, kav said:

If he messaged you agreeing to the $300 refund, that would constitute a written contract, a written contract cannot be superseded by a verbal contract so I'm a bit confused about the verbal contract statement.

You would argue both written and verbal contract.  (one in the alternative)   h/t